You are here

Archived: Elizabeth House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 29 February 2016. We had previously inspected this service in November 2014 when we found it was meeting the regulations.

At this inspection we found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because recruitment procedures were not sufficiently robust. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Elizabeth House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 18 older people who require support with personal care. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people living in the home.

Systems for recruitment of staff were not always safe. In three staff files we found full employment history’s had not been recorded. Where gaps in staff previous employment history had been identified there was not a written explanation of the reason, as required by law. This meant people were at risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff.

Staff felt supported and had received the induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively.

There was a registered manager in place at Elizabeth House. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe at Elizabeth House. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from abuse and staff had received training in safeguarding adults. Staff were able to tell us how to identify and respond to allegations of abuse. They were also aware of the responsibility to ‘whistle blow’ on colleagues who they thought might be delivering poor practice to people.

People were receiving their medicines as prescribed. We saw there were safe systems in place for managing medicines.

During our inspection we observed that there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and requests for support were answered promptly. We found that staff received the induction; training and support they needed to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their roles effectively.

People’s care records contained sufficiently detailed information to guide staff on that they needed to do to support people. Risks to people’s health and well-being had been identified and plans were in place to reduce or eliminate the risk.

We found the communal areas, toilets and bedrooms were clean and free from offensive odours. Since our last inspection the home had been re-decorated, the kitchen work surfaces had been replaced. New non slip flooring had been fitted in the communal areas and the kitchen. The bedrooms we looked at were spacious and contained lots of personal belongings and photographs. The home was clean and equipment was serviced and maintained appropriately. Procedures were in place for preventing the spread of infection. Systems were in place to deal with emergency’s that could affect the provision of care.

People’s rights and choices were respected. We found the provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These provider legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions.

Systems were in place to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met. People told us they enjoyed the food. The cook and staff had good knowledge of people’s likes and dislikes.

Peoples health needs were assessed and monitored. They had access to a range of health care professionals and any advice was documented and acted upon.

The staff and managers knew people well. They spoke fondly about people who used the service.

People who used the service and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support staff p

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was not always safe.

Recruitment processes were not sufficiently robust to protect people from the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff. Full employment histories and gaps in staff member�s employment history had not been recorded; as required by law.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and were aware of how to identify and respond to allegations and signs of abuse. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing (reporting poor practise) policy, and how to raise any concerns

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines a prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was effective.

Staff felt supported in their roles. They had received the induction, training and supervision they required to ensure they were able to carry out their roles effectively.

People�s rights and choices were being respected. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Systems were in place to ensure people�s nutritional needs were met. People told us they enjoyed the food.

Caring

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was caring.

People who used the service and their relatives spoke positively about the care and support staff provided. They told us it was homely.

The staff and managers knew people well. They spoke fondly about people who used the service. We saw staff listened and responded to people and provided support in an unhurried way

Responsive

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was responsive.

Care records were detailed and contained good information about people�s support needs and preferences. People and their relatives had been involved in planning the care.

People told us they enjoyed the activities that were on offer in the home. We saw that events to mark special occasions were organised within the home.

Well-led

Good

Updated 12 April 2016

The service was well-led.

All the people we spoke with said the service was well �led. People said the registered manager and deputy manager were approachable, caring and nice.

There was a good system in place for assessing, monitoring and reviewing the quality of the service. People told us they felt listened to.